1. The Defendant: 39,113,50 won to Plaintiff A; 42,051,90 won to Plaintiff B; 8,766,800 won to Plaintiff C; and 8,780 won to Plaintiff D.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business approval and public notice - Public notice of the Bogeumjari Housing Project (G Bogeumjari Housing Project; hereinafter referred to as the “instant project”): The designation and public notice of a prearranged housing site development district (H; hereinafter referred to as the “public notice of this case”) on December 31, 2007 - A public notice of July 14, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the “public notice of this case”) published by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on July 14, 2010 - Project operator: Defendant

B. The Central Land Expropriation Committee’s ruling on expropriation on May 23, 2013 (hereinafter “adjudication on expropriation”) - Land subject to expropriation: The term “land subject to expropriation” in attached Table 1 is indicated in the “land subject to expropriation”.

(hereinafter “each of the instant lands”). - Compensation for losses: Attached Table 1 stating “the amount of adjudication on expropriation” as the same.

- Commencement date of expropriation: June 24, 2013

The Central Land Tribunal's ruling on an objection made on April 17, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as "decision on objection") - Contents of the adjudication: The statement in the column for "amount of objection made" in attached Table 1 shall be as follows.

- An appraisal corporation: An appraisal corporation for a stock company and an appraisal corporation for a stock company;

D. As a result of the court’s entrustment to K of appraiser in this Court (hereinafter “Court appraiser”) - The results of the appraisal entrustment are as follows: The court appraiser in this Court’s appraisal is divided into the selection of reference land for the appraisal of compensation for each land of this case, where the reference land located outside the project area of this case is selected as a comparative standard place and where the reference land located outside the project area of this case is selected as a comparative standard place, and the court appraisal value of each land of this case is assessed as shown in attached Table 1. The court appraisal value of each land of this case is as follows: ① (where the reference land located outside the project area is selected as a comparative standard place), ② (where the reference land located outside the project area is selected as a comparative standard place).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 18 evidence, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including each number), the whole pleadings.